Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dickinson County weighs hauling waste in-house as contract costs rise
Summary
County staff reported options after talks with Waste Management, including taking hauling operations in-house or partnering regionally; commissioners approved further study and cost‑benefit analysis and discussed funding and staffing obstacles. Key cost figures and contract terms were reviewed.
County commissioners spent extensive time reviewing alternatives for handling the county's municipal solid waste after a recent meeting with Waste Management representatives.
Staff described a contract arrangement that has the county paying about $69.25 per ton to haul waste to Perry and an additional monthly fuel surcharge the county is currently paying of roughly $2,400'to $3,500. Under the current contract, staff said the county has been paying $2 per ton toward the purchase of one trailer since about 2018; commissioners questioned whether that charge and a fuel surcharge should have been removed after the trailer was paid for.
Staff presented several options: negotiate new contract terms with the current hauler, buy trailers and keep the hauling under contract, partner with adjacent counties (Salina, Cloud, Republic, Clay and others) to share hauling operations, or transition the hauling operation in-house. The staff analysis suggested in‑house hauling could be feasible if the county can recruit additional CDL drivers and an equipment operator; staff estimated an in‑house haul cost in the low $30s per ton and said a conservative vision could save roughly $100,000 a year if implemented successfully.
Commissioners and staff discussed capital costs for equipment and trailers (vendor quotes for new trailers were discussed around $130,000 per trailer), the need to replace older trailers, insurance and Kansas Corporation Commission requirements, and the operational tradeoffs of hauling longer distances to alternative landfills such as Salina to reduce travel time. Staff noted options such as adding a crusher/precrosser at the transfer station to increase payloads per trip and reduce transport costs.
No formal motion to change the contract was taken; commissioners asked staff to pursue a cost‑benefit analysis and to return with proposals, including potential partnership opportunities with neighboring counties and follow up negotiations with Waste Management.
The county will also review fee schedules and how much of the solid-waste program costs are covered by user fees versus taxation as part of the next steps.
